So for those who believe that we could have waged a larger war "in Afghanistan" to get bin Laden, which would mean a larger fight in Pakistan's frontier regions, explain how we could have done that given Pakistan's hostile reaction to our very small increase in cross-border attacks this year:
Since Aug. 13, there have been at least seven reported missile strikes as well as a raid by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos that Pakistani officials claim killed 15 civilians in tribally governed territory where the government has little control. The frontier region is considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.
Pakistan's government and military have issued stiff protests to Washington over the recent rash of cross-border strikes, although the criticism appeared to be mostly rhetoric aimed at soothing domestic anger, given that Pakistan has few options for stronger action.
Domestic media have criticized the government for not reacting more strongly, even suggesting the public criticism is just lip service and that a secret deal has been reached with Pakistan's leadership allowing cross-border incursions.
Pakistan army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has denied that and vowed to protect the country's sovereignty "at all cost."
Are you seriously telling me that we could have embarked on a unilateral campaign in Pakistan at any time over the last five years without alienating Pakistan? When this limited operation is drawing such a reaction?
At long last, will you please stop listening to Leftist military advice? They haven't a clue, you know. Don't be distracted by their claims.
